Ed Wildgoose wrote:
> Your model sounds very good. However, although theoretically less
> nice, you might want to consider deriving the Multiplex layer based on
> the (duplicate) data in the channels table.
Right. That was the thinking when I designed the current model: You can
derive the multiplex by comparing physical channel data. Given that
nothing in MythTV needed the multiplex yet, I thought that was
sufficient for now and that we could still add multiplexes explicitly
later when it turns out that the current model is insufficient. What
comes to me, you're welcome to change this detail, if needed. I
discussed the DB model before I implemented the code, so you're
encouraged to read the posts on the mailing list (look from beginning of
2003), in chronological order.
(I am saying multiplex here, because that's what we need for at least
one usecase: Recording several channels at once from the same card. I
thought every transponder carries (0 or) one multiplex?)